Re: [lamps] DNS DNAME pain.

[Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 11:29 AM, John Levine <[e-mail]> wrote:
> In article <[e-mail]> you write:

>>It is not clear to me how the following is required to be interpreted:
>>
>>example.net DNAME example.com
>>example.net CAA foo
>
> DNAME only maps names below it, so the CAA is fine.

That is my understanding from the text, the example suggests
otherwise. I would like to check that the old behavior of not matching
the root is still valid.

>>It might well be that the way to solve the DNAME problem is to specify
>>a new zone mapping record that does the job in a way that meets DNS
>>admins needs. ...
>
> There's a BNAME proposal kicking around that is sort of a combined
> CNAME and DNAME, mapping everything at and below the name.  Or do you
> mean something else like a translucent DNAME that only maps if there's
> nothing at the actual name?

I am aware that there have been proposals circulating, I have not been
tracking them directly. They seem to always be about to happen in a
year or two.

For anything of this sort, I would like the approach to be
'aggressively seek out all the requirements and solve them'.
Requirement discovery through deployment is a bad approach. We should
address requirements discovered through deployment but we should not
make that the only way of discovering them.

We don't have to do that here.